Agree to disagree on what? My own stand? I asked you a straightforward question. You've responded with your typical bullshit.

No, you're just Alinksky'ing things. And you have nothing to respond with except that. You lost.

You also added "personal" and "private." Your question was the bullshit.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

Nope. I did not. There's no mention of any adjective of "personal" or "private" just a "right to "bear" and "keep." You narrowed it down when the Framers didn't do that. Of course, it allows private and personal too. I explained how the nukes apply. You are incapable of understanding what I posted.

I really can't argue that. My question could have been answered with a "Yes" or "No." At one point I thought you were clearly saying "yes", then you questioned whether storage safety was a factor and that militias should have them. I didn't see the part in the 2nd that said "unless storage safety is a factor," but I guess you see it.
Your long and winding babbling, I can't follow.

A lot of times you hear the argument " The founding fathers did not anticipate Fully automatic, semi automatic, assault rifles or whatever"

To me that is an assinine argument. Looking at the bill of rights that our founding fathers put forth most were written to protect the people from the Govt. Our founding fathers never anticipated the Govt. having those weapons either.

Was a citizen owning cannons frowned upon back in those early days of our new found freedom? I have never heard one way or another. To me thats an interesting thought. I will have to do some research on that.

Now fast forward to today. Do I think a citizen should own Nukes. Of course not. Should a citizen be able to own an RPG? it certainly would be a blast no pun intended. No I don't think we should own RPG's

Now lets break it down to rifles. Should a citizen be allowed to have a fully automatic rifle? Having spent some time behind a few, I would certainly love to have one. Could I afford to feed it? Probably not. They are fun to shoot. But in the end I think we are where we should be on the fully automatics.

In the end we are at the line I am not willing to compromise on. Further laws will do nothing to end violence or prevent tragedies. The focus needs to shift from what to why. Lets focus more on why these behaviors occur and less on what tool was used to inflict the violence.

Now fast forward to today. Do I think a citizen should own Nukes. Of course not.

The idea of owning private nukes, as opposed to keeping them collectively as a militia, is a hypothetical—one that would be barred due to cost, as mentioned earlier. So a ridiculous question gets an equally ridiculous answer. However, it can be defended strictly using the context of the original Convention's debates, quotes by Framers and final wording with understood definitions if one wants to engage in the hypothetical.

Outside of that, I see it much like Switzerland who has bombs and planes inside mountains that their citizens can take to as needed. They don't have nuclear weapons though. They do have nuclear power.

The only other thing I can see is any conflict with other rights such as nuclear waste, pollution and the amount of destruction that can occur with an accident.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

Yeah, you needing a simple "yes" or "no" answer doesn't apply because it can't be done using your simple-minded two-valued logic.
You're just trying to frame the debate in order to score an automatic win but which disallows looking at it thoroughly. Or as if there is not an answer between the two extremes.

You made a ridiculous hypothetical unlikely to happen. As stated earlier cost aka markets would make it prohibitive.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

It makes me wonder why there are so many suicides in the military. Is it the prescription meds?

To my knowledge prescription meds are used but I don't know if they're all due to that. Or if there is mental trauma from war first and then they get them. I read amphetamines have been given to pilots in the SF before their bombing raids. I read that terrorist camps use to to de-sensitize them to killing themselves and others.

I'd have to research it more.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

It makes me wonder why there are so many suicides in the military. Is it the prescription meds?

I did a google and found this:

Medicating the military
Use of psychiatric drugs has spiked; concerns surface about suicide, other dangers

Quote:

At least one in six service members is on some form of psychiatric drug.

And many troops are taking more than one kind, mixing several pills in daily “cocktails” — for example, an antidepressant with an antipsychotic to prevent nightmares, plus an anti-epileptic to reduce headaches — despite minimal clinical research testing such combinations.

The drugs come with serious side effects: They can impair motor skills, reduce reaction times and generally make a war fighter less effective. Some double the risk for suicide, prompting doctors — and Congress — to question whether these drugs are connected to the rising rate of military suicides.

“It’s really a large-scale experiment. We are experimenting with changing people’s cognition and behavior,” said Dr. Grace Jackson, a former Navy psychiatrist.

A Military Times investigation of electronic records obtained from the Defense Logistics Agency shows DLA spent $1.1 billion on common psychiatric and pain medications from 2001 to 2009. It also shows that use of psychiatric medications has increased dramatically — about 76 percent overall, with some drug types more than doubling — since the start of the current wars.

__________________My Message to President-Elect Donald Trump:America did NOT became great because of what government did. America became great because of what the U.S. Constitution prevented our government from doing. The people made America great.

A lot of times you hear the argument " The founding fathers did not anticipate Fully automatic, semi automatic, assault rifles or whatever"

To me that is an assinine argument. Looking at the bill of rights that our founding fathers put forth most were written to protect the people from the Govt. Our founding fathers never anticipated the Govt. having those weapons either.

Now fast forward to today. Do I think a citizen should own Nukes. Of course not. Should a citizen be able to own an RPG? it certainly would be a blast no pun intended. No I don't think we should own RPG's

You say you don't think people "should" own nukes or RPGs. But the issue is the RIGHT to own them, not whether it is a good idea.

If the purpose of the 2nd was to protect from the government, and the govt has those types of weapons, then how does one argue that the 2nd Am doesn't guarantee a right to those same weapons?

Yeah, you needing a simple "yes" or "no" answer doesn't apply because it can't be done using your simple-minded two-valued logic.
You're just trying to frame the debate in order to score an automatic win but which disallows looking at it thoroughly. Or as if there is not an answer between the two extremes.

You made a ridiculous hypothetical unlikely to happen. As stated earlier cost aka markets would make it prohibitive.

Complete cop-out. First, people use hypotheticals all the time for analysis of any number of things. Second, it is not cost-prohibitive. It wouldn't cost billions to make a crude but useful nuclear weapon.